[Real-Life Sailors, Muster!]

On 11/15/2018 at 10:48 AM, DeRuyter said:

Must be a short season! ❄️

Not too bad.  The sailing I do is usually between May through September, though I have been known to go out as late as December and as early as April.  

[Real-Life Sailors, Muster!]

I'm a bit late to this topic, but my first sailing experience decades ago was on the 101' schooner Adventuress.  After volunteering on her later on, I also sailed Lady Washington.  In college and a bit after, I sailed a few USCG cutters, including the 295' barque USCGC Eagle.  In more modern sailboats, I sailed the USCGA's dinghy fleet (FJs, 420s and lazers), as well as J-22s, J-35s and Luders-44s.  A couple other odd boats here and there, either as passenger or helping out friends with crewing needs.  Now I happily sail my own Fortune-30 cutter in southeast Alaska.

[Little things you'd like to see]

I'd like to be able to buy ships for my fleet in a port that I don't have an outpost at.  Currently, without selling the main ship or creating an outpost we can't purchase new ships.

[Little things you'd like to see]

I'd like to see reduced sail requiring fewer sailors to trim the yards.  When cannons are taken out of commission or 'turned off', the requirement for fully manning the guns decreases accordingly.  The same should be happening with sails.  It would give people a reason to sail under less than full sail at times.  Battle sails are often faster than slow, which is the next 'speed' up, so if the manpower for battle sails is proportionally between dead slow and slow, it would give a bit of a bonus and incentive to actually sail with battle sails. 

[Sails turn animation revamp.]

I suggest devs  take a look at these images and if possible improve sail animation based on wind angle. Pay close attention to images 4 and 5. Here we can see a nice transition on sail turning. First you see bottom part of the sail is being turned followed by the top section. Something like this would be awesome in NA. Right now sails turn in one block and it looks very unrealistic and dull. By making sails twist a little when turning through the wind could make ships look much better. 

 

On the ships I've sailed, the only time the yards aren't braced around together is when there is a shortage of crew.  Then, the course yard is braced around and the upper ones in the stack naturally follow with a delay.  Then, the upper yards are trimmed properly.  Now for transiting, fanned and properly cockbilled yards would be nice, but in battle that level of trim and the relatively small increase in speed would be a wasted effort while fighting and maneuvering the ship.  Just keep the stack aligned to the new angle, then get back to the guns (or plugging holes, dragging wounded below, etc.).

[Sailing model goofs]

Hi Devs! Don't you have anyone on the team with some sailing experience? I have been sailing for 14 years, could not help but notice the following departures from the real life:

 

1) Wind direction arrow should be pointing to where the wind is coming FROM, not the where it is blowing to! That's the convention for all marine instruments. Your indicator must confuse the hell out of real-life sailors. Also, is it "true" or "apparent" wind? I think you show true, but in that era only apparent could be available to the captain. Consider recalculating it (adding vectors of wind's speed and ship's speed over ground).

 

2) When a ship is close hauled (going against the wind), all sails should be sheeted in. The mainsail boom should be on the center line. Yours is always slack.

 

3) The boats of that era should not be able do sail closer than 50-60 degrees to the wind, and their head sails should start luffing when they come too close and during coming about (turning to the opposite tack with bow into the wind). This flapping is a warning sign that there is no propulsion. Your sails are always full, which is incorrect and disorienting.

 

4) Going downwind with moderate winds - the more you bear away (put the wind behind you) the SLOWER the ship should go. Think: you are deducting the ship's speed from the wind's, creating less pressure for the sails. The closer you are to the wind, the faster you should go (beam reach (90 degrees to the wind) is usually the fastest). You have the opposite dynamic.  

 

5) Then the wind is too strong for a given ship and the captain did not reduce the sail's area (by pressing S key), coming to beam reach should create broaches - excessive heel and uncontrollable turns into the wind, after which the sails luff and the ship slows down. Basically, each ship should have her polar diagram programmed - what speed is attainable at each wind direction and power, for each set of sails (from dead slow to full, in your terminology). Chance of broaching should also be programmed.

 

6) When one ship approaches another from windward, she blocks the wind. The other ship should start flapping her sails and slow down. When from leeward, the attacker should suffer the same effect and fall behind. So the overtaking should always be done from upwind, if with 2-3 boat lengths, and the defending ship should not let that happen by coming up.

 

More realistic sailing simulation would make your game so much better! If interested, I can help you with the model improvements.

 

1)  It's a pretty minor thing, and even as a real sailor it doesn't confuse me at all.  This is a game after all, and I don't set my sails by hitting 'W', or turn by hitting 'A' and 'D'.  Additionally, all wind in this game is true, as there is no apparent wind created (simplicity here).

 

2)  No, this is only true with more modern vessels.  Many vessels do not do well with the main boom sheeted all the way in, as it will give the vessel way too much weather helm.  For modern racing vessels, this is pretty much the case, but for more traditional vessels it often isn't.  Heck, my cutter likes the boom to be eased about halfway to the rail when sailing close hauled.  She steers better that way, heels less, makes less headway, and generally makes better speed.  Only when I reef do I haul the boom in any tighter (especially if I haven't reefed the jib).  For square riggers, the spanker was used more for balancing than driving, so the sheeting angle does not need to be 'for best speed' anyway.

 

3)  Yes, but gameplay enjoyment of the non-sailing masses has taken over on this point, though I think they do a fair job at giving the boats different windward capabilities anyway.  As for the graphics/sound point here, as stated earlier it's just a matter of system requirements and the fact that this is still in alpha.  Heck, not too long ago the OW ships had all their sails set square, so it was very confusing figuring out the wind at times.  Give it time and it's sure to get better.

 

4)  Again, this is for modern boats.  Most (probably all) boats in game do not sail fastest dead down wind, but in real life square riggers generally do best on a broad reach (obviously this is very ship specific as well).  Remember, most modern racing vessels are designed for close hauled to be their best point of sail, as most races have a long upwind beat, then additional downwind sails are set once rounding the mark.  In this era, ship were designed to hopefully be decent sailors on just about any point of sail.  Additionally, for non-racing vessels today their fastest point of sail is often not close hauled, but on some sort of reach (depending on rig).

 

5)  There's been a lot of call for this, and many possible solutions from reducing speed with too much sail, increasing heel (which does happen, but not as much), to sail damage and more.  Hopefully something is done eventually, but remember this is still alpha.

 

6)  It's been mentioned and would be realistic, but there is also a lot more momentum in these vessels than modern racing boats, and getting a partial wind shadow for 20-30 seconds wouldn't generally slow down the boat too much.  Now if you were camping directly to windward, it might have an effect.

 

Just to comment on 4. if you look at the sailing profiles under the ships here(click on any ship) you will see that most ships if not all ships sail worse running with the wind than broad reach or beam reach(depending on the rigging which is better). What is faster depends on sail plan, what you say is most definetely true for fore and aft rigged ships, not so much for square rigged ships(where broad reach is usually the fastest)

 

As mentioned above, close hauled is not always the fastest point of sail even for fore and aft vessels.  I've sailed many that prefer close reaching or a beam reach; especially with a gaff rig.

 

"If you get disoriented by a full 180 degrees without this arrow, then you have major situational awareness issues."

Yes but in real sailing you have actual wind. You can tell the direction from getting blasted In the face or the back of the head.

The indicator in NA shows where your hat just blew off to lol.

 

In lighter wind you don't get 'blasted' with wind, and when sailing large you can be left with very little apparent wind.  Tell-tales were used back then as well, such as small bits of yarn from certain shrouds, flags, etc.

 

Agreed. I only tried the cutter so far in the game

 

Well, while I appreciate newer players' input, insulting the devs by asking if anyone has any real life sailing experience while only having sailed one beginner boat so far seems rather unfair.  As for your 14 years, have they been on modern vessels (I'd assume based on some of the assumptions you've made)?  Has it been mostly racing?  Have you had any actual square rigger or other traditional craft experience?  Have you done any long stretches of cruising/ocean crossings?  I don't ask to be insulting, but because 14 years of experience is rather meaningless if it isn't fleshed out about what kind of experience you have.  14 years on various tall ships is probably quite valuable to the game; 14 years of weekend sailing during the summer racing season is nearly (though not completely) meaningless.  I know I've got over half my life (let's just say more than 14 years and leave it at that) with a broad range of experience of different vessels from racing, to tall ships (both original and replicas), to a host of other craft.  It's my profession, passion and hobby.  And I know that there are people here with much more experience than me.  It just might be good to tone back the insults a bit when you're just starting off yourself, and the devs have been working on this for years.  Heck, even if they didn't have any sailing knowledge when starting out, they could probably fit right in at any sailor's bar by now!

[Essex Stern Furnishings]

One thing to remember, if talking about the ship historically, is that paint can easily be changed throughout the life of the vessel.  Which paint job should be used? Did you know that USS Constitution was once painted white? So, it seems that while somewhat plain, as your model is, the only major difference seems to be that in game the colors don't 'pop' as much as on the nice, shiny model.  After months at sea, there's a good chance the paint wouldn't exactly be pristine either, so think of it as a weathered look.  So, different sources and references to look at for the developers, and then ultimately picking one that looks good/right for the game in relation to the other vessels and hopefully is pretty as well.  There's got to be a little bit of artistic license for the devs to make these vessels that realistically are from very different eras look like they belong in the same game.  On the other hand, I am happy whenever they might make the game look better and more accurate, so thanks for the post!

[Mission discussions]

Personally, I think the idea of racing could be good too.  Make it like a battle instance, possibly with some buoys to race around or an objective a dozen miles away in a random direction or something.  It would be a great way for people to distinguish the smaller differences in the vessels.  Possibly stiffness could allow them to point a little higher without loss of speed, whereas a vessel with a speed add-on would need to take wider, longer tacks.  And, vessels did race in this time period as well.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yacht_racing

 

 

...The formal racing of boats is believed to have started with sailboats in the Netherlands some time in the 17th century. Soon, in England, custom-built racing "yachts" began to emerge and the Royal Yacht Squadron was established in 1815. In 1661 John Evelyn recorded a competition between Katherine and Anne, two large royal sailing vessels both of English design, "…the wager 100-1; the race from Greenwich to Gravesend and back.”^[3]One of the vessels was owned, and sometimes steered, by Charles II, the King of England. The king lost.

In 1782 the Cumberland Fleet, a class of sailing vessel known for its ability to sail close to the wind, were painted racing up the Thames River with spectators viewing from a bridge.^[4] Much like today, this obsession with sailing close to the wind with speed and efficiency fueled the racing community.

In the nineteenth century most yacht races were started by allotting starting positions to the competitors. Buoys were laid in a straight line, to which the competitors attached their yachts by means of spring ropes. The yachts were required to keep all the sails forward of the main mast on deck until the starting signal was given...

[Flags (size) on schips]

I guess it all depends on the nation and how much they want to spend on flags. 

 

Or as I mentioned earlier, weather/wind speed.  Generally, if it's much windier you fly a smaller flag.  Ships would have had more than just one ensign.

 

[Flags (size) on schips]

Looking back at those pictures I posted, it seems that most vessels with a lateen mizzen had a flagstaff, whereas a boomed mizzen/main resulted in the flag being flown from the gaff.  I'm sure there are exceptions, and I know some vessels actually raised a flagstaff when in port and struck it when underway.

[Flags (size) on schips]

This varied greatly between ships and based on inclement weather.  Smaller sails were generally flown in rougher weather, and often while sailing no flag was flown unless in sight of an enemy.  Also, not all vessels had a flagstaff on the stern; some flew it from the mizzen/main gaff (depending on rig).  Yes, a larger sail does create a bit of windage and affects the sailing characteristics of the vessel to some degree, but it was also important to be identified by all vessels in the battle as to what nation the ship is and whether it's struck.  Below, the Lady Washington shows off her 'flag sail', which is approximately the size of one of her t'gallant sails, flies from the main gaff and the flag halyard attaches to a cleat on the main boom.

 

 

Now the schooner America seems to have gone a bit too far...

 

This painting of Trafalgar shows some flags that would nearly skim the water when becalmed.

 

And again, a rather large flag.

 

And sure while many of the large vessels I've pictured have flagstaffs, here's a picture of a French ship of the line where the flag is attached to the gaff.  If there was a flagstaff back there, it would interfere with the mizzen boom during sailing maneuvers.

 

So, as Vernon Merril said, there wasn't really a uniform size or placement.  It depended on the size of the vessel, the particulars of the rig, the weather at the time, and commander's preference.

[Will there be an armed Indiaman?]

they would be silly to remove the small trader ships. you want players to have MORE OPTIONS, more convenience at their decisions, not less options. If its not breaking the game, and it adds to player happiness, leave it alone.

 

Personally, I like using a trading cutter or lynx for small runs around my crafting port, as it's fast and can sail into the wind better than even the brig, and the hold is big enough for gathering a few supplies that are needed.  Plus, they can outrun nearly every other vessel upwind if ganked.

[Sorry Devs you have killed the game]

so what you say is that someone shouldn't be able to tag someone a second time for an undefined amount of time? That's a start 

 

Well, that's one decent option for a solution, but at the same time one's friends can keep on ganking them due to the OW time compression.

 

Unless they are using self-attack exploit (which is real, huge, game-destroying problem), if your enemy has an instance to log-off in, it is because you lost or failed to reinforce a battle. Accept the consequences of loss. If you weren't there to reinforce in time, then the battle ended hours or days ago in OS time. Gathering in OS on top of a closed battle is an exploit of OS time compression.

 

Yes!

 

I think it would be fine if you were automatically logged off after 3 min. Logging back on would put you on OS with no invulnerability and 2 min (or maybe longer) no join timer.

 

Not bad, but maybe a little longer than 3 min.  Enough time to use the facilities, grab a drink, say hi to the kids, etc. before going back.  Maybe 10 min?  I do like the logged out consequence instead of just being forced out of the end of battle screen though.

[Rams discussion]

My thinking is that it should not happen and should just destroy the bow for the ramming ship (causing leaks)

but i think there are no under water holes after a ram

maybe i am missing something

 

 

The part that is missing here is the flexing of the wooden structure.  Just enough flexing could cause the caulking to come out of the seams, or springing an entire plank.  This would be extremely difficult to repair at sea, especially during battle.  That said, for gameplay I like the current model overall, though adding more rigging damage (and possibly morale/crew shock) would be nice.  The only problem with making ramming more damaging to the rammer is that a new tactic of crossing in front of someone and stopping would be utilized.  Essentially, instead of ramming you'll try to get rammed, while raking the vessel from the bow.  This tactic could be abused just as easily.  It would be nice if the bowsprit and masts could interact, so that if someone has their bowsprit sticking out between someone else's masts, that there's a good likelihood of it snapping off.  Lower masts were generally much sturdier, but if already damaged they could fall as well.

[new ship possibility]

Oh no my friend, she's not the L'Unite class corvette. Surprise is from a much later date than 1754. He means the 20 gun post rate ship.

 

L'Unite is a 44 gun corvette, the historical HMS Rose was a 20-28 gun frigate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Rose_(1757)

 

 

Where's your source for L'Unite's armament?  If I recall correctly, L'Unite was built to bridge the gap between the smaller warships and frigates, thus would be a small frigate and most definitely NOT a 44 gun ship!  Heck, the British classified her as a 28 gun frigate (though she often carried more than those 28 guns, but that was more of the norm in the day).  Furthermore, as the Surprise from the novels/movie was a work of fiction based in history, and Patrick O'Brian once toured HMS Rose (pre-conversion) and noted that she was very much like he envisioned Aubrey's Surprise, I'd say she's a pretty good fit.

 

*Edit:  Looked up the wikipedia page for Surprise... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Surprise_(1796)

[Open World Audio]

I like the idea! However, I don't like Tyrant's idead of an audio warning of enemy ship sighted on the horizon.  There should be some benefit to keeping a sharp lookout.

[Add 1 Crafting Note to pick speed/stiffness.]

Are you a competitive player, AK?

Also, Quin. You positive about 3.6%?

 

Yes, though also somewhat casual and not in a guild.  That said, I also like the historical aspect of this game.  When building a ship, even to the same design, there are plenty of variables that can affect speed, strength, resistance to rot, etc. I like seeing some randomness to what comes out.  If  you want that perfect boat, you have to work a bit harder to get it, whether it's crafting 2-3 vessels (and then either selling them for profit or breaking them up in hopes of a blueprint), or just working a bit harder to gain victory with a slightly slower, less powerful boat.

 

Upgrade randomness already makes up for this. If you roll a 2/4, you have to pass on your least important upgrades. Rolling stiffness however takes  away the _strongest_ modifier possible.

 

And if given the choice, every ship built will be built with speed despite being 1 note more expensive, then there's something wrong with stiffness, right?

 

Upgrades are different, as you can choose what you put in them.  The nice thing is that they can either help make up for a deficit in original boat construction or capitalize on its strengths.  The point here is that there should be some inherent difference in the boats, and sometimes it works to your favor and sometimes not.  Historically, USS Constitution was not known to be one of the faster vessels of her sister ships.  However, she was still quite effective due to handling and circumstances.  And that's the point, if you have a vessel, learn how to best use her and use tactics and shiphandling to come out with a win.  I would rather not have all the (any class ship) identical because of some magic 'best configuration' that everyone builds if they're able.  Then the differences just don't matter and we might as well have them all come out the same anyway.

[Reload Penalty in Rain]

Well with rain comes wind. With wind comes swells. Swells make people lose their balance and water to build on the lower decks. I would think people working to keep the powder dry and the bilge pumping would be alot more during a storm/rain

 

Actually, rain does not always come with wind, and swells could develop from wind hundreds of miles away.  Wind and waves are related, but you can have that without any rain.  So, during a storm there would generally be more water down below due to the ship working (flexing) and some water leaking.  However, water from damage would be much greater, and unless there was a lull in fighting, the water seepage from the ship working would be negligible enough to ignore in most conditions, except for pumping out the bilge once a day or so.  And due to the designs of the magazines on anything beyond probably the brig/snows were designed to keep the powder especially dry.  So during a storm, yes more people would be needed for trimming the yards, gunnery would be slightly slower due to the roll and pitch of the deck, but that's all due to sea state.  Rain itself wouldn't have a major impact.

 

Just because you can't imagine any other effects, doesn't mean there aren't any.

 

An example of a possible effect; rain would adversely affect exposed deck guns, but not below-deck guns. Therefore, ships with more exposed deck guns would be put at a temporary disadvantage against those ships who have more of their cannons protected under the deck, thus altering the balance of strength in certain situations, and providing players with an extra tactical element.

 

Likewise, rain could affect boarding; musketry would be hampered by rain.

 

Rain would not necessarily affect exposed deck guns more than below.  The powder was in cartridges and carried in bags or covered tin pails (depending on era, nation, etc.) that were protection from sparks and water.  The touch hole would be covered/protected until ready to fire, when the priming powder would be added and then the gun fired.  Much more important would be heavy seas forcing lower gun decks to remain closed on some larger ships, and this has good historical evidence.  Musketry would be slightly hampered by rain, but rain has no affect on boarding pikes, axes, swords, etc.  The lack of as many muskets would really be evened out by the enemy not having muskets as well.

[Add 1 Crafting Note to pick speed/stiffness.]

No thanks.  I enjoy that part of the crafting is random.  If you can pick every aspect of them, especially with regard to speed/stiffness, then pretty soon the ships will all be the same for each class with no randomness to them.  Shipbuilding in the day did have some degree of random luck as well as skill.  Keeping this randomness helps to keep the ships all slightly different.  

[Reload Penalty in Rain]

I'd say no, as the spray and general ocean air when traveling 14 kts or the likes would be just about the same, so there would be no difference.  However, if something like this does get implemented, it should only affect the top deck of guns.  I'd be much more inclined to see lower ports closed in rough weather on the larger vessels.

[Battle Entry Timer really is too short]

I think 2 min is just fine.  

[What to expect about shallows in the future ?]

You want shallows to have a limited effect on battles but be relevant on the OW? I don't think that is workable, since the scale of the OW is mostly too large for meaningful localized shallows gameplay. And the time compression and sailing model make it pointless to add obstacles and nuances to the simplified gameplay.

 

I'd agree.  The compressed time, as well as not being able to manually control the sails and having generally a fairly large turn radius makes running aground in OW fairly common in restricted waters.  I'd vote (for what it's worth) to not have consequences, beyond losing speed if running to/from an enemy, for running aground in OW.  For battles, however, I could see definitely some damage based on the speed of running aground, possibly some leaks, and it would be rather neat to have a grounding shock timer if you hit too hard, and thus you can't back off the shoal for 30 seconds or so, simulating some effort needed to refloat the boat.  At lower speeds or more 'glancing' groundings, perhaps little to no damage and no grounding shock, but a ship of the line heading directly onto shoals at 8 kts should probably spring a leak or two and take some decent hull structure damage, plus have that grounding shock before they can get off the reef.  Additionally, with a ship that's nearly sinking, running aground to keep her immobile, but 'afloat' and firing guns would be a great aspect as well, though a risk of capsizing should also be present if doing that.  Of course, with these risks should come some sort of warning/indicator that shoals are near in the battle.  I don't recall seeing any warning in the battle mode like there is in OW about shoals.

 

Anyway, that's my two cents.

[2 minute battle join timer is a bit cra*]

In battles you would have good times and bad times. You outnumber or get outnumbered. 

 

But the bottom line is a mathematical certainty:

 

 

Longer joining times provides larger battles with reinforcing possibilities.

 

Shorter joining times provides smaller battles without reinforcing possibilities.

 

It's a matter of a gameplay decision. So far the devs listened to the guys which glass is half empty. Ask yourself what provides the most fun gameplay:

 

Small skirmishes or large battles....

 

Personally, I love a good frigate (or other pair of comparable vessels) duel, 1v1.  They historically happened much more than large fleet actions and tend to rely much more on ship qualities and captain's tactics than fleet actions, which are primarily a matter of broadside weight.  If you've got 25 Santis together, you're pretty much invulnerable unless the enemy also has 25 Santis.  So, I'd prefer multiple small engagements (which also can take much less time, a plus in my book due to life outside the internet) than one or two large fleet actions in an evening of playing.  Sure, if I have the time I might join up with a battle group, but then we're heading out together to take or defend a port.  Otherwise, I'm often sailing solo or with one/two other friends to do missions or try and patrol an enemy coastline.  I'd rather be able to survey a scenario and flee from much larger opponents instead of being stuck in a battle when an entire fleet of ships of the line appear to windward of my solo frigate.  Now, if I attack in lower visibility, such as fog or heavy rain, then I am happy to run that risk.  In clear visibility, the reality is that you should know everyone else out on the ocean around you before making the decision to attack, unless they happen to be hidden by land.

 

As for getting weighing anchor from port, have you ever actually done that?  In a small ship, the anchor itself is probably a couple of thousand pounds.  Of course in a small ship there is also likely not a capstan, so the slower windlass would have to be used (no chance to build up momentum).  Then, once the anchor is at the water's edge, the fore yard has to be used to haul it up and onto the rail (thus no fore-course or fore tops'l set) and then properly secure it.  Often ships would anchor with two anchors in a busy harbor so as not to swing as wide, so the process would have to be done again.  This process could take hours, especially if there are any complications such as a fouled anchor, or additional lines such as spring lines set to the anchors.  And this is if your ship is otherwise ready for sea, the whole crew is aboard, etc.  It could easily take a captain an hour just to get back to his ship 'from a shop' as was mentioned earlier.  Then there's the whole problem of sailing to the battle before it's over.  It's not realistic.

[Gun-Powder smoke should stay longer and cannons should roll back while firing (like it was in RL)]

As for the smoke, it's pretty realistic as is.  Especially in a brisk breeze, smoke doesn't necessarily linger (personal experience with that).  As for gameplay, it will at times obscure your view (I have missed broadsides before because of it-annoying, but a fun part of the game).  Occasionally it might hang out a bit, if sailing dead downwind, but overall it seems pretty good as is.  Below is a video of some examples as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pV9OxD0Deyo

[Remove the crafting limits]

Personally, I'd like the option to type in the number of something I want to craft/buy.  Especially for purchasing when there are thousands 1500 or so available, if I just want 100, or some other specific number, it's almost impossible to narrow down.